State should collect more data on lead testing of schools' drinking water, group says

A year after the state began requiring schools to test their drinking water for lead, a nonprofit group is calling for further action, saying the limited data that exists make it difficult to fully grasp the scope of the problem.

More than 300 schools in 95 districts had at least one water outlet with traces of lead measuring at or above 15 parts per billion, the level at which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggests action be taken, New Jersey Future said in a report released Thursday morning. At least 14,598 outlets were tested in these districts, with 8.1 percent exceeding the lead concentration threshold, according to the analysis, which cited data provided by the state Department of Education.

Story Continued Below

The analysis was limited, New Jersey Future acknowledged; the data only included the 95 districts that reported their results to the DOE. There are nearly 600 school districts in New Jersey.

“The limited data amassed by the DOE make it impossible to get a fully accurate accounting,” New Jersey Future said in its report. “The type and level of data collected is insufficient to quantify how many schools in New Jersey have lead in drinking water and how many outlets require remediation to keep children safe.”

New Jersey Future advocates for sensible growth, redevelopment and infrastructure investments. It said the districts included in its analysis represented urban, suburban and rural communities, demonstrating that lead in schools’ drinking water is a widespread problem in New Jersey.

A number of districts across the state scrambled to test their water after a scare in March 2016, when the Newark school district announced many of its schools had elevated lead levels. The issue had previously come to the forefront after the lead crisis in Flint, Michigan.

When the state Board of Education passed regulations in 2016 requiring testing, it said districts had to make the results publicly available at each school site and on the district’s web site. A district only had to report its results to the DOE if lead levels exceeded 15 ppb.

That may explain why no data was available for some districts.

However, the group also found that while some districts had lead levels exceeding 15 ppb and posted the information on their websites, the results were not shared with the DOE. Newark, Jersey City, Camden and Atlantic City were among the districts with elevated lead levels whose results were not included in the DOE data, which New Jersey Future compiled through public-records requests with the state.

That’s why the nonprofit is recommending that results for each school be reported to the DOE, even if there were no traces of lead, to confirm that all districts conducted testing.

DOE spokesman David Saenz declined to comment on the report because he had not seen it. However, he said the department sent a memo to district administrators last week, informing them they have until Sept. 29 to submit a “statement of assurance” confirming their district completed the required testing.

The memo also asked districts seeking state reimbursement for the testing to submit their requests by that date. No deadline was previously set for when districts had to submit their statements of assurance or results, Saenz said.

In addition to seeking confirmation that every school tested its water, New Jersey Future is recommending the state ask for more information to determine the type of water outlet that tested positive — whether it came from a drinking fountain or one used for food preparation, or a janitorial sink, for example — and the frequency of usage.

The education department should create a standardized electronic collection system and have districts submit or resubmit their most recent results.

“A robust database of lead results would allow policy makers to get a better understanding of how widespread lead is in school drinking water, and allow them to do the necessary analysis to facilitate effective and efficient direction of remedial funding and technical assistance,” the report states.

Among its other recommendations, New Jersey Future suggested the state issue a request for proposals from water testing companies, then provide districts with a list of approved vendors that could do the job at the lowest costs. The same could apply to selecting vendors that provide bottled water and filter systems.